According to Justice Scalia, Trump's attorney's could be sanctioned

[IndigoChild5559]

"Being a sore loser disgraces the office of the president, but acting disgracefully is not illegal. After all, the president and the few remaining pundits who repeat his totally unsupported ideas can't easily be punished for lying to the American people. But his lawyers in these promised lawsuits are different than politicians and pundits. As officers of the court, they swear oaths to present only cases that have a "basis in law and fact."

"If the Trump campaign continues to file cases claiming fraud that lack any actual evidence of fraud or malfeasance, its lawyers should be fined, suspended or even disbarred. But don't take my word for it—take the word of the late conservative hero Justice Antonin Scalia."

According to Justice Scalia, Trump's lawyers should face sanctions for "litigation abuse" | Opinion

 

[Revoltingest]

This is theoretically true. But in practice lawyers are the
one's who sanction other lawyers. Consider that this is
like cops policing other cops.
Do you expect lying lawyers to suffer real consequences?

 

[sun rise]

This is theoretically true. But in practice lawyers are the
one's who sanction other lawyers. Consider that this is
like cops policing other cops.
Do you expect lying lawyers to suffer real consequences?

quis custodiet ipsos custodes

 

[Revoltingest]

quis custodiet ipsos custodes

Junsellop iqua viddel....ferd luh.

 

[Tumah]

I thought he was dead. How does he have an opinion on this?

 

[Twilight Hue]

"Being a sore loser disgraces the office of the president, but acting disgracefully is not illegal. After all, the president and the few remaining pundits who repeat his totally unsupported ideas can't easily be punished for lying to the American people. But his lawyers in these promised lawsuits are different than politicians and pundits. As officers of the court, they swear oaths to present only cases that have a "basis in law and fact."

"If the Trump campaign continues to file cases claiming fraud that lack any actual evidence of fraud or malfeasance, its lawyers should be fined, suspended or even disbarred. But don't take my word for it—take the word of the late conservative hero Justice Antonin Scalia."

According to Justice Scalia, Trump's lawyers should face sanctions for "litigation abuse" | Opinion

Givin the age of rampant and out of control injury and class litigation lawyers, i would say all lawyers should be sanctioned and revert back to the time where this behavior wasn't previously allowed.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I thought he was dead. How does he have an opinion on this?

What he said, although it was in the past, applies to this situation.

 

[Tambourine]

This is theoretically true. But in practice lawyers are the
one's who sanction other lawyers. Consider that this is
like cops policing other cops.
Do you expect lying lawyers to suffer real consequences?

Ah, but we know that cops policing other cops has led to upstanding orderly state of affairs only marred by leftist Antifa Marxists looting and rioting despite the best of our boys in blue's intentions.

 

[sun rise]

I thought he was dead. How does he have an opinion on this?

A practitioner of Judaism needs to ask this question?

 

[Watchmen]

This is theoretically true. But in practice lawyers are the
one's who sanction other lawyers. Consider that this is
like cops policing other cops.
Do you expect lying lawyers to suffer real consequences?

Not sure I follow you. Judges sanction lawyers. Lawyers don’t sanction other lawyers.

 

[Revoltingest]

Not sure I follow you. Judges sanction lawyers. Lawyers don’t sanction other lawyers.

Judges all start out as lawyers, & the vast majority of
judges I know return to lawyering after a judging stint.
It's all very incestuous, & explains why judges are so
reluctant to award legal costs to defendants who win
a frivolous lawsuit....they don't want to discourage
suing, which is their bread & butter.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Scalia spoke like a lawyer. Did you miss this bit?

'The rules also state that "the factual contentions" in a legal pleading must either "have evidentiary support" or "will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery."

I believe that in one case that was dismissed (Pennsylvania?) the judge said it was because the Trump lawyers admitted that had no evidence, but that they wanted an investigation. Seems to fall under the second part of the clause above.

If you would like to see the rulings or status of the various lawsuits filed by the Trump campaign, Ballotpedia has links to them:

Ballotpedia's 2020 Election Help Desk: Tracking election disputes, lawsuits, and recounts - Ballotpedia

 

[Watchmen]

Judges all start out as lawyers, & the vast majority of
judges I know return to lawyering after a judging stint.
It's all very incestuous, & explains why judges are so
reluctant to award legal costs to defendants who win
a frivolous lawsuit....they don't want to discourage
suing, which is their bread & butter.

True that judges start out as lawyers, but I’ve never heard it phrased as lawyers sanctioning lawyers. No lawyer would phrase it that was and I still think it’s technically incorrect.

I also don’t think judges need voluminous lawsuits to survive. Most courts are overworked and stretched thin, scheduling trials years out.

As for frivolous lawsuits, depending on the state, some defendants can get costs and sometimes fees. In fact, I recovered nearly one million dollars in fees and costs for one of my clients after prevailing at trial for my client (the defendant). And, this was in California of all places.

 

[Revoltingest]

True that judges start out as lawyers, but I’ve never heard it phrased as lawyers sanctioning lawyers. No lawyer would phrase it that was and I still think it’s technically incorrect.

Technically shmechnically.....
Of the lawyers I know, some became judges, & returned to lawyering.
Of those who've never been judges, several aspire to it.
Tis a revolving door.
And their licensing board is made up of lawyers.
So all who are in a position to sanction a misbehaving lawyer are fellow lawyers.

I also don’t think judges need voluminous lawsuits to survive. Most courts are overworked and stretched thin, scheduling trials years out.

Another way to see that same situation is that business is booming.
It's a culture.
On one occasion, I saw a lawyer & judge actually agree that making
the losing plaintiff pay the defendant's costs would discourage suing.

As for frivolous lawsuits, depending on the state, some defendants can get costs and sometimes fees. In fact, I recovered nearly one million dollars in fees and costs for one of my clients after prevailing at trial for my client (the defendant). And, this was in California of all places.

I'm in Michiganistan.
I saw attorney's fees awarded in court too.
But this was 1 case out of the hundreds I've seen.
It's unusual, but the plaintiff made the judge angry.
Don't make that judge angry.
(I have some stories about him.)